If I am correct that would have to be The MEDITERRANEAN and the MIDDLE EAST.
Genghis Khan was a leader with lot of great qualities, and he is regarded as a great leader, one of the greatest in history in fact.
Explanation:
Genghis Khan was a Mongol ruler of the Mongol Empire. He managed to unite the Mongol tribes and make them the greatest power of their time. Genghis Khan also set the foundations for the formation of the largest empire that the world has seen until then, only to be surpassed in size by the British Empire few centuries later.
This Mongol ruler possessed many great qualities. He was very wise, excellent tactician, loved his people, was establishing peace on the conquered territories, encouraged people of ethnic and religious backgrounds to collaborate and coexist. It is very interesting that Genghis Khan can be seen bot as a nationalist and as a liberal, from modern perspective of course.
His nationalist tendencies are seen in the fact that he loved his country, he loved his people, and he made sure that every Mongol has all of the basic needs for life secured. On the other side, his liberalism can be seen in the fact that he had nothing against people of other ethnic, cultural, and religious backgrounds, but instead he was encouraging all people to put their differences aside, collaborate, and help each other for the benefit of everyone. All in all, Genghis Khan was an excellent leader, and a model as to how many other leaders should have been in that period of time.
Learn more about the Mongol Empire brainly.com/question/11288396
#learnwithBrainly
Answer:
These embers of hatred would burst into flames in 1343 in the city of Tana. After a fight between Genoese Christians and the local Muslims in Tana, one Muslim local was found dead. ... So, in 1343, the Mongols laid siege to the city of Caffa. Caffa did not turn out to be as feeble as the Mongols expected.
Explanation:
<em>hope</em><em> </em><em>it</em><em> </em><em>is</em><em> </em><em>helpful</em><em> </em><em>for</em><em> </em><em>you</em><em> </em>
<em>thank</em><em> </em><em>you</em><em> </em>
Explanation:
Hamilton made two principal points in the essay. First, he argued for the independence of the judiciary from the other two branches of government, the executive and the legislative. In presenting a case for the judiciary, he reached his second major conclusion: that the judiciary must be empowered to strike down laws passed by Congress that it deems "contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution."
In presenting his argument for the independence of the judiciary, Hamilton claimed that it was by far the weakest of the three branches. It did not, he said, have the "sword" of the executive, who is commander in chief of the nation's armed forces, nor the "purse" of the legislature, which approves all the tax and spending measures of the national government. It had, according to Hamilton, "neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment."
---------------------THANK YOU------------------------------
Many countries around the world took different decisions during wartime. Some have been more brutal and difficult than we could have imagined. But in this situation that the Armenians faced, political events also had an effect. If you really want to get the right answer, you have to turn your perspective to both sides. Because both sides see themselves as justified in this event in history. And indeed, both sides have their faults and their justifications. In 1919, two American diplomats who wanted to investigate the event impartially visited the region. Their names were Emory Niles and Arthur Sutherland, and their view of the region was that both sides were right. Among the statements they wrote, it was written that the Armenians formed gangs against the Turks and plundered the Turkish villages in the region. But they also wrote that "Turkish soldiers were displaying a bad attitude towards Armenian civilians. According to the Turks, the reason for this was that the Armenians caused unrest in the region and took part in gang actions against the Turks. So the soldiers had to take control of the area. But when we look further into the past, we see that Armenians and Turks lived in peace in the empire. Even Armenian representatives took part in the Ottoman parliament in the 19th century. The reason why 2 communities that lived in harmony are so angry with each other is that foreign countries provoke the region to annex the region. We know that in the first world war, Russia wanted to invade the region. We also know that the Russians want to include the Orthodox Armenians in the region among themselves. It would not be difficult to conclude that the Russians formed gangs from the Armenians in the region and provoked them against the Kurdish and Turkish villages in the region. If this is indeed true, we would conclude that both parties are right in their own way.
